In the novel Crime and Punishment, everything is subject to the disclosure and comprehension of a deep moral idea. Not a single question deserves a clear answer. In his confession, the main character exclaims in his hearts: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?”, As if looking for an answer from myself, from my interlocutor, from the highest powers. Can a man encroach on the life of another, for the sake of victory over world evil and in the name of universal happiness? The answer seems obvious. But for some reason, even today, a century and a half after the release of a brilliant work, the question does not lose relevance.
Motive of crime
One day, a poor student concocts the murder of an old percent-woman. There is an unkind glory about this woman in the district, as if she is a “bloodsucker”, and because of her monstrous greed, quiet, miserable, but evil-minded people die.
Rodion Raskolnikov does not need money to satisfy base selfish desires. With the help of them, he will be able to graduate from the university, help his mother and sister, get out of the debt hole. Then he will certainly fight his whole life against the injustice and suffering of people. The percentage is just a "useless louse." Her death is a small loss. Judging her is a step that must be overcome. Only with the help of this crime will Raskolnikov gain strength and cease to be an unhappy creature, forced to eke out a miserable existence. “Am I a trembling creature or do I have a right?” Dostoevsky put into these words the torment of the human soul over the eternal question of whether all means are suitable in achieving a good goal.
Confession
Only two weeks will pass from the moment of the crime, and Raskolnikov confesses his crime to Sonya Marmeladova. To the question "Am I a trembling creature or do I have rights?" then he will not have an answer. He was never able to carry out his immoral plan, despite a lofty goal and good intentions. Sonia will help him to comprehend his terrible act, but repentance will come much later, in hard labor.
On the day of meeting with Sonya, he is terribly worried about the upcoming conversation, since he already feels that his soul has split into two parts. He committed the murder, but he cannot use the money earned as a result of this crime. Nobody judged him and did not give him the right to decide who lives and who dies. But to go with confession to the investigator, he believes, does not make sense. They will not understand him there, they will only laugh: he robbed, but did not take the money.
Meanwhile, the bailiff of the investigative affairs knew the name of the offender. The only evidence was the article that Raskolnikov wrote shortly before the events described. This article would have no weight in court. But something in her indicated that, sooner or later, the killer himself confessed everything.
Raskolnikov's article
With this composition, it all starts. In it, Raskolnikov tried to prove the existence of "higher people" and their right to crime. Strong personalities move the world, others are just material in the hands of the strongest. In his article, Raskolnikov divides all people into two types: the lowest and the highest. People of the second kind are inherently destroyers. But they destroy the present in the name of the future. And if a strong person needs to step over a corpse or blood, then permission for this act, he gives himself, alone. Such a person has the right to everything.
Raskolnikov undoubtedly refers himself to the second world. But here he has a completely logical need to prove to himself this involvement. He asks the following question: "Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?" Where did this confidence come from that he was allowed to break the law if he had not done so before? Thus, the murder of an old woman is not only a way to get out of poverty, but also to confirm to itself the right to crime, and thereby involvement in powerful people, those for whom everything is permitted.
Investigator and criminal: a psychological duel
Porfiry Petrovich called the article by Raskolnikov absurd and fantastic. But the sincerity of its author did not leave the investigator indifferent.
He has no evidence, but the way the crime is committed speaks to the ardor and imbalance of the killer. The criminal is not solely led by a thirst for profit, which is evident to an experienced investigator already at the first stage of the investigation. The style in which the robbery is committed indicates that the author is able to take the first step, but stop there. His motives are dreams that have little in common with reality (he commits a murder, but does not shut the door; he hides money, but returns to the scene of the crime). As if he wants to prove something to himself, as if he asks himself: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” The author of a utopian article also reflects on rights. And he is confident that clever and strong personalities allow everything. Porfiry Petrovich understands that the author of the article and the killer of the interest-bearer are one person. True, theoretical reasoning proved to be inapplicable in practice. The creator of the theory did not take into account the existence of other values ​​- virtue, love, self-sacrifice.
Lizaveta is a random victim
Raskolnikov himself gave himself the right to kill. According to his theory, without victims it is impossible to change the world for the better. Destroying a useless person will not do any harm to others. And with the death of Alena Ivanovna, her debtors only sighed calmly. But the student Raskolnikov has a cold heart only on paper. To kill an old woman who profited from usury, "drank the blood" of the unfortunate, is not an easy task, the ambitious Rodion Romanovich is confident in his innocence, and therefore, the torment of conscience is not afraid of him. However, what about the unrequited and meek Lizaveta, who so does not appear on time in the old woman’s apartment? Her murder was not planned by Raskolnikov. “Am I a trembling creature or do I have a right?” - a dilemma that he still cannot solve because the victim is a quiet, innocent creature.
Svidrigailov
Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are called literary critics by literary critics. They are united by a crime. Both of them, according to their own assessment, are “eligible.” Their fates are similar. But if a poor student, going for a crime, asks the question “Am I a trembling creature or do I have a right?”, The meaning of which has deep implication and is associated with continuous torment of conscience, then Svidrigailov commits atrocities without any remorse. He lives on, he perceives the murder very calmly. Crime for him is a means by which he can live as he wants. In his soul there is no place for good thoughts and the struggle against injustice. There is nothing at all in it. And it is from his own spiritual emptiness that he dies.
The death of Svidrigailov resonates in the soul of the protagonist of the novel. After her, he realizes his death and understands that on the ill-fated day he did not finish with the old percent-performer, but with his own soul.
Sonechka Marmeladova
Using this image, Dostoevsky expresses the opposite opinion of Raskolnikov’s theory. Sofia Marmeladova - the personification of hope and love. For her, all people are equal. And the main conviction of this character is that happiness cannot be achieved through crime.
Raskolnikov and Marmeladova live in different worlds. He is guided by the idea of ​​spiritual rebellion, it is Christian humility. Thanks to compassion and sympathy, she protects her soul and remains a pure and sincere person, despite the moral and moral dirt that surrounds her. Confessing to Sonya in the murder, Raskolnikov, confused, gives reasons that prompted him to commit a crime. Among them are the unwillingness to see the suffering of the mother and sister, and a heightened sense of justice, and the desire to get an education and break out into people. "Am I a trembling creature or do I have rights?" - he asks the question, which has now become rhetorical, because thanks to Sonya he understands that he is neither better nor worse than others. Each destiny has its own way, and nothing depends on a person. Only from God.
Laurels of the Little Corsican
Raskolnikov wants to understand who he is, wondering, "Am I a trembling creature or do I have rights?" Tormented by the search for truth, he puts forward a monstrous idea. His idol was Napoleon. And not by chance. This man was a cult figure of the 19th century. In creating his brutal philosophy, Rodion Romanovich constantly looks back at Bonaparte, who was a violator of moral standards and public order. Napoleon sacrificed everything to satisfy the thirst for power, disposed of hundreds of human lives. And he did it calmly, calmly, indifferently.
Having once divided people into two categories, the hero of the novel is concerned about which one he belongs to. Napoleon made history. He clearly saw his goal, and the death of innocent people did not bother him. Raskolnikov did not dream of becoming a great commander. He wanted to see happy mother, sister, and all the destitute and unhappy that surrounded him. To do this, he believed, it was enough to kill one worthless person, a "useless louse."
The Marmeladov family lived in inhuman conditions at the expense of their daughter, who was forced to sell herself. Raskolnikov donated all his money to them. But I could not use the stolen goods.
Raskolnikovs in world history
“Am I a trembling creature or do I have a right?” - a quote, which upon closer examination is associated with the most terrible slogans in the history of mankind. The division of people into "trembling creatures" and "right of those having" resembles the theory of a higher race created by German Nazis. Raskolnikov is often associated with the theory of the “superman” of Friedrich Nietzsche. Such a consonance is no coincidence.
Being in hard labor, Dostoevsky more than once met such young aggressive dreamers. They were depressed by social inequality. This spirit of discontent hovered in the air until the beginning of the next century. Nietzsche created the theory that they were waiting for. Many wanted to become strong and change the world. And there was nothing criminal in it. If not for terror and violence, without which not a single political and social transformation took place.
Dostoevsky in his novel sought to convey to readers that evil cannot be of use to anyone, and above all to the one who committed it. Raskolnikov's famous question remains open only to those who do not share the philosophical and moral position of the writer.